[News] Leafs part ways with recently hired goalie coach after social media history comes up

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Numerous ones. It's become a major issue, especially since a number of those transwomen have broken records in their events.

Ah, see, I'm just not paying close attention to the Olympics I guess.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've declared that the fact that something may be legal does not make it right. Fair enough. What does make something right? You seem very sure that you know whether something is right, I'm wondering how you've managed to figure it out with such certainty.

Thirty-five years of studying moral philosophy certainly helps. An even longer history of seeing horrible consequences flow from perfectly legal actions helps more.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've declared that the fact that something may be legal does not make it right. Fair enough. What does make something right? You seem very sure that you know whether something is right, I'm wondering how you've managed to figure it out with such certainty.

You've never heard the term "TERF"?

Real acts of crime have victims. No victim no crime. The same can be applied to whether something is objectively wrong. Does it cause pain and suffering with no positive out come = wrong. Affects ppl positively overall = right. Anything in between is debatable.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ah, see, I'm just not paying close attention to the Olympics I guess.

From what I understand, it's happening more at the level of college athletics.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've declared that the fact that something may be legal does not make it right. Fair enough. What does make something right? You seem very sure that you know whether something is right, I'm wondering how you've managed to figure it out with such certainty.

You've never heard the term "TERF"?

I haven't please enlighten me.

[PeteMoss]

Makes sense... The story here was that Quinn was the first transgender athlete to win a medal.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So how many years in advance should Mr. Imoo have anticipated MLSE's social-media policy of 2021?

Apparently 3 weeks ago is too long in advance for you, so maybe you should answer your own question.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Thirty-five years of studying moral philosophy certainly helps. An even longer history of seeing horrible consequences flow from perfectly legal actions helps more.

35 years, hey? So... you do have it figured out then? What's the answer? I for one await enlightenment. How ought we to act?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Of course it did. In your hypothetical, M&M Inc. just happened to misjudge the market (which happens all of the time). In that case, the market will presumably punish M&M. Maybe the same will happen to MLSE? Only time will tell. But both decisions were driven by the market (and the decision-makers' perception of the market).

But Twitter is not the market. M&M, in the hypothetical, didn't misjudge the market at all; they made a business decision based on noise from people who were not even involved in their market.

This, by the way, happens in my line of work all the time: see my long post above. The publishing industry is notorious for ignoring clear signals from the market and paying attention to irrelevant noise from online mobs, Manhattan cocktail parties, academics, and other sources that have no connection with the paying customers.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

35 years, hey? So... you do have it figured out then? What's the answer? I for one await enlightenment. How ought we to act?

If it took me 35 years to figure it out, what makes you think I can put it on a bumper sticker for your benefit? Do the work and you'll get the benefits.

Meanwhile, here's a start:

‘Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.’ —From the Analects of Confucius, as translated by A. Waley.

If you would like people to get you fired from your job because you said things on Twitter that they disagreed with, then by all means be on board with firing Dusty Imoo. If you merely think it can't happen to you, you might have the decency not to join the mob yourself.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If it took me 35 years to figure it out, what makes you think I can put it on a bumper sticker for your benefit? Do the work and you'll get the benefits.

Ah, so it's a secret. I understand. How much do I have to pay you to get you to reveal these hidden truths? Is it like a seminar thing or do I just buy your pamphlet or what's the deal?

I mean, come on, Kant and Aristotle and Bentham and others managed to get it to a bumper sticker (in Kant's case it's a bit of a hard to read bumper sticker but it still fits). I just think you're not trying very hard.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ah, so it's a secret. I understand. How much do I have to pay you to get you to reveal these hidden truths? Is it like a seminar thing or do I just buy your pamphlet or what's the deal?

I mean, come on, Kant and Aristotle and Bentham and others managed to get it to a bumper sticker (in Kant's case it's a bit of a hard to read bumper sticker but it still fits). I just think you're not trying very hard.

You're right, I'm not trying at all. Neither are you. You're just assuming that you have the right to mock me because it happens to be more convenient to your desires at the moment. If you found out that I actually know what I'm talking about, you might have to make an effort to inform yourself.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Thirty-five years of studying moral philosophy certainly helps. An even longer history of seeing horrible consequences flow from perfectly legal actions helps more.

Here's a philosophical thought experiment.

Employer hires employee to help it achieve certain objectives. Employer pays employee for work employee does to help it achieve its objectives. Employee does something outside the workplace which significantly harms the employer and its objectives. Employer determines that employee has not helped it achieve its objectives and there is a significant risk that employee will not help it achieve those objectives in the future. Employer therefore terminates employee.

Is the employer right to do so? Or is there some moral reason why the employer (and its owners, shareholders, other employees etc) should be required to just bear that damage and continue to employ the employee?

[djsFlames]

Did he post anything egregious himself or did they fire him just based on his likes/retweets?

[zamler]

Ever see that episode of Black Mirror where everything is based on your social media score and everyone is a fake phony scared out of their mind? We are so headed to that reality.

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Did he post anything egregious himself or did they fire him just based on his likes/retweets?

Only perception matters. Not defending or condemning this person know nothing about them.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're just assuming that you have the right to mock me because it happens to be more convenient to your desires at the moment.

I am definitely assuming that I have that right, yes. Are you suggesting that I don't? How do you justify that view? Do I have to buy the pamphlet for that part too?

If you found out that I actually know what I'm talking about, you might have to make an effort to inform yourself.

I'm good... getting my minor in moral philosophy was effort enough for me. Actually, wait, is this the part where we compare degrees?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But Twitter is not the market. M&M, in the hypothetical, didn't misjudge the market at all; they made a business decision based on noise from people who were not even involved in their market.

This, by the way, happens in my line of work all the time: see my long post above. The publishing industry is notorious for ignoring clear signals from the market and paying attention to irrelevant noise from online mobs, Manhattan cocktail parties, academics, and other sources that have no connection with the paying customers.

Well, I'd be pretty surprised if you have a better read of MLSE's market than MLSE (a large, pretty sophisticated organization with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake). But of course organizations, even large sophisticated ones, make mistakes all the time. However, even if true, it just makes MLSE, M&M Inc, or these publishers incorrect, not immoral.

Again, in all but the most egregious of cases, employers making these decisions are doing so without actually alleging cause, and are paying the terminated employee in lieu of notice. These are clear business decisions where the perceived costs of termination are less than the costs of continuing the employment relationship.

So I don't understand your moral outrage.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Here's a philosophical thought experiment.

Employer hires employee to help it achieve certain objectives. Employer pays employee for work employee does to help it achieve its objectives. Employee does something outside the workplace which significantly harms the employer and its objectives.

That is precisely where the thought experiment parts from the real example. What harm does MLSE suffer from allowing its employees to express their own views on their own time? It is merely asserted, without proof, evidence, or argument, that it is somehow detrimental to a company to have employees whose political beliefs do not align with those of senior management. And it is further assumed that the company ought to have the power to punish any employee who expresses such a belief.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I am definitely assuming that I have that right, yes. Are you suggesting that I don't? How do you justify that view? Do I have to buy the pamphlet for that part too?

You could start by attempting to engage in good faith instead of just sneering. The best way to prove that you have a right to sneer, oddly enough, is not to start out by sneering.

So knock it off with the unfunny jokes about pamphlets.

I'm good... getting my minor in moral philosophy was effort enough for me. Actually, wait, is this the part where we compare degrees?

Sorry, got hit by a truck and had to leave without taking my degree. If it's a pissing contest you want, you'll have to look elsewhere.

[PaperBagger'14]

Should people begin to worry about who they follow on social media these days? Incoming slippery slope, but if someone followed a swath of ######bags online, would that warrant losing your job over? My guess is that it will happen at some point and probably sooner than later.